SELVAMARY Vs. S.GNANASIGAMANI RAJADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the private complaint in C.C.No.197 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the the respondent lodged a private complaint alleging that the first petitioner is running Salt Enterprises as well as obtained dealership with the respondent. While that being so, in order to develop the business, the first petitioner insisted the respondent to invest Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) for development of the said business. Believing the words of the first petitioner, the respondent paid a sum of Rs.41,54,800/-. The first accused assured that the said amount would be returned within a period of 18 months. On 24.03.2016, the first petitioner also handed over 14 cheques in order to repay the said amount. When the respondent inspected the company of the first petitioner it was found that there was no such company and there were no workers under the first accused. Hence, it reveals the fact that the first petitioner did not start any such business as informed by him. The second petitioner is the son of the first petitioner, who is also one of the partner of the first petitioner's company and that they jointly cheated the respondents. When the same was questioned by the second respondent, they abused him by using filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. Therefore, a private complaint has been lodged before the trial Court and the same was taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 420 , 294(b) 120(b), 506(ii) of IPC. He further submitted that the entire complaint is a false and frivolous one and it was foisted due to vengeance to the petitioners in business competition. The first petitioner is having separate concerned namely, Selvam Salt Enterprises, Thoothukudi and a separate TIN number, sales tax and GST tax have been obtained. The first petitioner is also a income tax assessee for the past 15 years. While that being so, the first petitioner has availed cash facility from the Corporation Bank, Thoothukudi and the Company is still actively proceeded with the business. In fact the income tax returns would show the turnover of business. The first petitioner obtained business dealing from the second respondent, who is a saltpan owner. In the course of such business transaction, the respondent sent money to the first petitioner through RTGS on various dates. In view of the dispute between them, the present private complaint has been falsely foisted as against the first petitioner. Insofar as the second petitioner is concerned, he is the son of the first petitioner and he has no way connected with the entire transaction. The entire complaint filed with malafide intention and no offence has been levelled as against the petitioners. He further submitted that even assuming that the offence made out as per the allegations levelled by the respondent, the entire cause of action took place in Thoothukudi and as such the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi has no jurisdiction to take cognizance on the complaint lodged by the respondent. In fact all the parties are residing at Thoothukudi. The entire business transactions took place at Thoothukudi. When the accused are outside the jurisdiction of the trial Court, the trial Court ought to have conducted enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and only thereafter, the cognizance should be taken on file. In the case on hand, the learned Judicial Magistrate did not even conduct enquiry as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and take cognizance. Therefore, he sought for quashment of the entire complaint.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent lodged the complaint alleging that the respondent is running saltpan company. While that being so, the first petitioner approached the respondent to invest a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- in the Sankar Salt Enterprises, which is running by the petitioners. Believing the words of the petitioners, the respondent through cheque has paid a sum of Rs.41,54,800/-. The petitioners also assured that the amount invested by the respondent would be repaid within a period of 18 months. Thereafter, the first respondent failed to repay the said amount. When the respondent verified with the petitioners' Company, to shock and surprise, there was no such company and no labourers were working and thereby, cheated the respondent by receiving the amount and thereafter failed to repay the said amount. When it was demanded by the respondent, she was scolded by filthy language and was threatened with dire consequence. Therefore, the respondent lodged a complaint before the concerned police officials and as no action was taken as against the petitioners, the respondent was constrained to file a private complaint. The learned Judicial Magistrate has conducted enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.PC. by examining the respondent as well as two other persons. On perusal of the material evidence it was found that prima facie case as against the petitioners was found to take cognizance for the offence under Sections 420 , 294(b) , 120(b) , 506(ii) of IPC and issued summons. The points raised by the petitioners cannot be considered under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Since all the same are question of facts. He further submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi is having jurisdiction and hence, cognizance was taken since the respondent is residing within a jurisdiction of Thoothukudi. The quash petition filed only to drag the proceedings and hence, it is liable to be dismissed.